D. Minn. E-Discovery Checklist

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota has published a guide on its site list issues surrounding the production of ESI to be discussed at a 26(f) conference. See: http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/FORMS/Clerks_Office/eDiscovery-Guide.pdf .

Amongst many other things, the Guide suggests that the burden of a litigation hold can relieved by limiting the number or types of custodians. It lists cloud storage repositories as an ESI source that can excluded because the burden of preservation outweighs the likelihood that information can be obtained from itthat is not retrievable from more accessible sources.

It recommends considering a 30(b)(6) deposition to delineate ESI requests. Database production can be handled by granting access to an opposing party's expert.

It raises the possibility that the parties share a joint translator for foreign language documents. The testing, sampling and auditing of keywords is recommended. It also suggests that the parties share information about their review and culling methodology in order to verify their processes.

The guide lists quick peek reviews as an option.

Kroll's State by State Guide to E-Discovery Laws

Check out Kroll's state by state guide to American electronic discovery laws.  

http://www.ediscovery.com/pulse/frcp-rules-map/?utm_source=Eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=US_ED_FRCP_Rules_Map_Part_2  

There's a map breaking down which incarnations of the FRCP states have adopted. 

ESI Search Warrants

The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 41(e)(2)(A) authorizes the seizure of ESI or media containing ESI. Prominent e-Discovery Judges John M. Facciola and David Waxse have issued decisions denying such warrants.

Judge Facciola's decision in In the Matter of the Search of Information Associated with [Redacted]@mac.com That is Stored at Premises Controlled by Apple, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2014) recommended that government ask a service provider to obtain limited information; appoint a special master to hire a vendor who can perform searches; delegate the search to a personnel that will not disclose other information to investigators, or even have a magistrate judge waive the plain view doctrine.